"WTF? I don't see any resemblance. Look at the men's lives and records personal, and professional."

In our conversation, we said he could be like Clinton but without the sexual problems.

We were remembering the good times under Clinton, not the bad. We liked his centrism and would appreciate the extremists on both sides of the spectrum giving it a rest for a few years, while a competent, experienced person presided over what would hopefully be economic prosperity.

I don't think the analogy goes very far. Many on the right (as evidenced by comments here and elsewhere) see Romney as a technocrat with no guiding principles. I think the left (represented, e.g. by Joe Klein in Primary Colors) saw Clinton as someone whose heart was on the left, but was willing to lie and make compromises to obtain power. Since the primary goal of the left is power, they saw this as a good thing.

I guess in the sense that they are both technocrat wonks you can make the case. Another way that they could end up having similar administrations would be if the Ryan Tea Party took over the House from the Repubs the way the Gingrich Repubs took the house over from the Dems.

many putative democrats seem to consider Romney a moderate, notwithstanding his love of BushCo, his draconian immigration plan, his pro-capitalist at any cost views, etc. He's not a Clinton. He's Nixon

I don't understand the Romney hate. If Romney were nothing but a flip-flopper, he would have abandoned his religion as a political liability long ago. I see Romney as a pragmatist. Newt would be another flame-throwing ideologue who would only further inflame the culture wars instead of moving the country toward an economic recovery. Even if you like his style and his political position, you've got to face the fact that Gingrich would be a temperamental, thin-skinned, oversensitive president. We've already got one of those.

"experienced person presided over what would hopefully be economic prosperity."

So you gave up on the change, but still got that hope thing going.

It's gonna take more than that to fix where we are. I don't think some people realize how structural our problems are. We need reform - not stewardship.

Clinton could do the stewardship thing, but only because the nation was riding waves of new technology and markets at the time, which lulled us into more debilitating structure that we can't support when things returned to normal.

I'm not saying Romney can't do the reform, but he will need more fortitude than he's demonstrated in the past. He can't just change positions when he meets some resistance.

Things will get worse if our current government is just competently maintained, which would be in itself incompetent.

This happens all the time in failing companies, where the last of the loser management teams does too little too late. At least Romney has an understanding of such things, but he will still need the conviction to act on it.

Comparing him to Clinton would attract who exactly? Wavering Dems? Perhaps. But it would more than likely repel all those independents who've had their fill of statist non-solutions to what's ailing us.

If Gingrich starts racking up primary wins, I'm not sure what the GOP elite can do about it, other than start screaming that Gingrich is unelectable. They are already doing that, but so far, it has been ineffective.

Bago said:"Things will get worse if our current government is just competently maintained, which would be in itself incompetent.

This happens all the time in failing companies, where the last of the loser management teams does too little too late. At least Romney has an understanding of such things, but he will still need the conviction to act on it."

Bago nails it. Our national boat is irreparable and so we need to devise a better way of getting there.

Andy R. and Prof. Althouse: that you support Romney is fine. IIRC, Prof. Althouse supported (or at least voted for) Obama.Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.But to suggest (and agree with) that anyone but Romney in the GOP race is a "Joke Candidate" is more than over the top. Its just inaccurate to call them "joke candidates".

Andy R. and Prof. Althouse: that you support Romney is fine. IIRC, Prof. Althouse supported (or at least voted for) Obama.Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.But to suggest (and agree with) that anyone but Romney in the GOP race is a "Joke Candidate" is more than over the top. Its just inaccurate to call them "joke candidates".

The history of the LDS clearly demonstrates the Mormons' connection to freemasonry (ie, Joseph Smith doing masonic chants as he was killed). Is Romney a member of a secret society (not to say heretical church)? Members of secret societies are banned from many public offices. Including PotUS. Ergo, MR's unfit for public office. JQ Adams suggested as much.

Yeah, but she really is NOT of Delaware. Didn't even move there until 2003, when she relocated for a job (nothing wrong with that!). She's Philly/Moorestown, NJ stock, with extended living stints in LA and DC.

We were remembering the good times under Clinton, not the bad. We liked his centrism and would appreciate the extremists on both sides of the spectrum giving it a rest for a few years, while a competent, experienced person presided over what would hopefully be economic prosperity.

But under Barack Obama the bureaucracy has taken a sharp lurch to the left and our economy has consequently taken a nose dive. Before we had Clinton's centrism we had Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 to straighten out 4 years of Carter. Before a centrist can "preside over ... economic prosperity" we are clearly going to need someone who is a fiscal conservative to bring us back to economic prosperity.

I just don't think the GOP needs to make the same mistake Democrats made by nominating a thin skinned ideolouge. I didn't like Gingrich back when he was in Congress. I'll grant him his intelligence but he's still an ass.

Big Mike: But under Barack Obama the bureaucracy has taken a sharp lurch to the left and our economy has consequently taken a nose dive. Before we had Clinton's centrism we had Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 to straighten out 4 years of Carter. Before a centrist can "preside over ... economic prosperity" we are clearly going to need someone who is a fiscal conservative to bring us back to economic prosperity.

Gingrich, too, for that matter) have always sold themselves as competent managers of the Welfare StateWhich brings to mind Gingrich's description of Bob Dole as "tax collector for the Welfare State." I second bagoh20--we need a Hercules to divert the Potomac through the stables.

WRT terror and entitlement reform, the Clinton era was "years which the locusts have eaten." The scandal-a-week was entertaining to watch, like a train wreck.

I don't see how they are anything alike other than both being white males. Clinton was a genuine narcissist who loved wheeling and dealing. Clinton doesn't believe in much more than himself. If you look at his history his biggest losses were due to swinging far to the left at the behest of his wife.

Romney, on the other hand, doesn't particularly like wheeling and dealing, he likes administrating. If he has a flaw it's that he takes too many politicians at their word. The healthcare debacle in Massachusetts was partly, if not largely, due to Romney actually believing the state politicians would actually fulfill their promises to him. I'm hoping he learned from that experience.

BTW, the biggest problem with Romney and the religious right isn't his flip-flopping on abortion per se, but that he doesn't give a shit about abortion one way or the other. Like any pragmatist, Romney is willing to shift his position on things in which he has no ideological stake.

Whomever is elected president in 2012 will likely govern with a solidly conservative House and a split Senate. Enacting the kind of reforms most conservatives desire will require a president who can persuade Democratic senators to cross party lines, or at least give them some cover when they do so. At the very least, a president who will be able to campaign effectively during midterms that those intransigent senators who opposed reform are irresponsible extremists. Someone who appears to be an extremist from other side of the spectrum will be unable to do these things. Politicians want to win, or at least be perceived as winners. You need a moderate to sell significant reform, both to the public, and to fellow politicians. Romney appears to be, so far, the best bet by these criteria.

Perhaps the following quote is taken out of context (didn't see the referenced show), but it's hard to imagine what context could change the meaning of the quoted words:

“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”

"Andy R. and Prof. Althouse: that you support Romney is fine. IIRC, Prof. Althouse supported (or at least voted for) Obama.Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.But to suggest (and agree with) that anyone but Romney in the GOP race is a "Joke Candidate" is more than over the top."

====================Except that most who voted for Obama over McCain do not believe they made a mistake. Obama was bad, McCain was worse. Evidence of that - is there is absolutely nil support for the POW who suffered. Like Kerry, a lifetime Senator of minimal brains who the whole voting electorate saw, rejected, and never regretted that rejection.

As for joke candidates, I do not consider Huntsman, Romney, Paul, Perry, and Bachmann as jokes. Cain, Gingrich, and gay wars Santorum are jokes at some level. Cain was preposterous, and Gingrich unstable. Bachmann is smarter than people generally know, but she is still a 2-term lightweight Congresswoman whose ambition greatly exceeds her qualifications. Paul is an ideologue, not a joke, but 90% of the public rejects his extreme libertarianism. Huntsman wrong place, wrong time. And Perry, who is in many ways a competent governor and no joke - has serious mental nimbleness issues. His latest faux pas was confusion on how many people are on the Supreme Court. Maybe another brain freeze, but he couldn't answer the question. (His programmming apparantly ended at "he would pick judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito")

Sorepaw - "I'm also curious, in light of a theme 7M has sounded on Romney's behalf, whether he made any effort to rein in out-of-control bureaucracies while Governor of Massachusetts—and, if he actually did, whether he was successful."================

Romney inherited a 600 million hole in the budget. Despite having an 80% Democrat legislature and 100% Democrat Congressional Representation in DC, he converted that into a 2 billion surplus by cutting programs and streamlining government (cutting fat).He did increase user fees on actual services for the users vs. General population - but he also cut taxes and met at least biweekly with Dem leaders in the state. If they could not hash out their differences, Romney vetoed their bills. Sometimes he was overriden, but he had no fear of "being overriden" like Bush II did in not vetoing anything for 5 years..

All in all, an impressive fiscal feat, considering the power of the Dems in Massachusetts.An adult who can build alliances and work with the opposition. Reagan was good at that, so too was Clinton after he defanged Newt and worked with Bob Dole to have a functional governent.

WV -Romney - like Clinton. (and Reagan - who also had a host of moderate and sometimes liberal compromises as governor and was a serial flip-flopper from FDR Democrat and union activist to a more conservative sort post-Hollywood days)

@Ann i don't understand this Clinton faux nostalgia. Clinton was never that popular, his first election he won a plurality and the second he barely eked out a majority of the vote running against a tired old man and Perot. He had his ass kicked in the 94 election and wasn't exactly all that popular at the end of his Administration which Gore ran on as in essence the third Clinton term.

Clinton was lucky he had the right opponents to keep him from pushing the excess of his party's left wing.His was a rather corrupt administration, only exceeded by the current administration. Still compared to Obama he does seem like a good president but at the rate Obama is going Herbert Hoover will look like a good president.